Brockhaus v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Brockhaus v. State

1914 OK CR 79, 140 P. 1194, 10 Okla. Crim. 684, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 197

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 28, 1914

DocketNo. A-2008.

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK CR 79 (Brockhaus v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brockhaus v. State, 1914 OK CR 79, 140 P. 1194, 10 Okla. Crim. 684, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 197 (Okla. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, William Brockhaus, was convicted at the January, 1913, term of the county court of Kingfisher county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of'$200 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The testimony on behalf of the state was by two witnesses, a deputy sheriff and a man named Anderson. Each testified that they went into the place of business belonging to the accused and got a pint bottle of whisky about the 17th day of January, 1913. Counsel contend that the evidence does not show a sale, but, if anything, a gift. Witness Rutherford testified on cross-examination as follows: “Q. Where did you say you got this bottle? A. I bought it from this man Brockhaus? Q. AVho give you this bottle? A. This man Brockhaus. Q. You asked him. for a bottle of whisky? A. Yes, sir.” The witness ‘had previously testified that the bottle contained whisky. It was opened in the presence of 'the court and jury, and submitted to the jury for inspection. This is the only testimony bearing on the question of the sale. In our judgment it was amply sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the accused guilty as charged. We find no error sufficient to justify a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, William Brockhaus, was convicted at the January, 1913, term of the county court of Kingfisher county on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of'$200 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days. The testimony on behalf of the state was by two witnesses, a deputy sheriff and a man named Anderson. Each testified that they went into the place of business belonging to the accused and got a pint bottle of whisky about the 17th day of January, 1913. Counsel contend that the evidence does not show a sale, but, if anything, a gift. Witness Rutherford testified on cross-examination as follows: “Q. Where did you say you got this bottle? A. I bought it from this man Brockhaus? Q. AVho give you this bottle? A. This man Brockhaus. Q. You asked him. for a bottle of whisky? A. Yes, sir.” The witness ‘had previously testified that the bottle contained whisky. It was opened in the presence of 'the court and jury, and submitted to the jury for inspection. This is the only testimony bearing on the question of the sale. In our judgment it was amply sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the accused guilty as charged. We find no error sufficient to justify a reversal. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK CR 79, 140 P. 1194, 10 Okla. Crim. 684, 1914 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brockhaus-v-state-oklacrimapp-1914.